Taxonomic rank explained

In biology, taxonomic rank (which some authors prefer to call nomenclatural rank[1] because ranking is part of nomenclature rather than taxonomy proper, according to some definitions of these terms) is the relative or absolute level of a group of organisms (a taxon) in a hierarchy that reflects evolutionary relationships. Thus, the most inclusive clades (such as Eukarya and Opisthokonta) have the highest ranks, whereas the least inclusive ones (such as Homo sapiens or Bufo bufo) have the lowest ranks. Ranks can be either relative and be denoted by an indented taxonomy in which the level of indentation reflects the rank, or absolute, in which various terms, such as species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, and domain designate rank. This page emphasizes absolute ranks and the rank-based codes (the Zoological Code, the Botanical Code, the Code for Cultivated Plants, the Prokaryotic Code, and the Code for Viruses) require them. However, absolute ranks are not required in all nomenclatural systems for taxonomists; for instance, the PhyloCode,[2] the code of phylogenetic nomenclature, does not require absolute ranks.

Taxa are hierarchical groups of organisms, and their ranks describes their position in this hierarchy. High-ranking taxa (e.g. those considered to be domains or kingdoms, for instance) include more sub-taxa than low-ranking taxa (e.g. those considered genera, species or subspecies). The rank of these taxa reflects inheritance of traits or molecular features from common ancestors. The name of any species and genus are basic; which means that to identify a particular organism, it is usually not necessary to specify names at ranks other than these first two, within a set of taxa covered by a given rank-based code.[3] However, this is not true globally because most rank-based codes are independent from each other, so there are many inter-code homonyms (the same name used for different organisms, often for an animal and for a taxon covered by the botanical code). For this reason, attempts were made at creating a BioCode that would regulate all taxon names,[4] but this attempt has so far failed[5] because of firmly entrenched traditions in each community.[6]

Consider a particular species, the red fox, Vulpes vulpes: in the context of the Zoological Code, the specific epithet vulpes (small v) identifies a particular species in the genus Vulpes (capital V) which comprises all the "true" foxes. Their close relatives are all in the family Canidae, which includes dogs, wolves, jackals, and all foxes; the next higher major taxon, Carnivora (considered an order), includes caniforms (bears, seals, weasels, skunks, raccoons and all those mentioned above), and feliforms (cats, civets, hyenas, mongooses). Carnivorans are one group of the hairy, warm-blooded, nursing members of the class Mammalia, which are classified among animals with notochords in the phylum Chordata, and with them among all animals in the kingdom Animalia. Finally, at the highest rank all of these are grouped together with all other organisms possessing cell nuclei in the domain Eukarya.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature defines rank as: "The level, for nomenclatural purposes, of a taxon in a taxonomic hierarchy (e.g. all families are for nomenclatural purposes at the same rank, which lies between superfamily and subfamily)." Note that the discussions on this page generally assume that taxa are clades (monophyletic groups of organisms), but this is required neither by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature nor by the Botanical Code, and some experts on biological nomenclature do not think that this should be required,[7] and in that case, the hierarchy of taxa (hence, their ranks) does not necessarily reflect the hierarchy of clades.

History

While older approaches to taxonomic classification were phenomenological, forming groups on the basis of similarities in appearance, organic structure and behavior, two important new methods developed in the second half of the 20th century changed drastically taxonomic practice. One is the advent of cladistics, which stemmed from the works of the German entomologist Willi Hennig.[8] Cladistics is a method of classification of life forms according to the proportion of characteristics that they have in common (called synapomorphies). It is assumed that the higher the proportion of characteristics that two organisms share, the more recently they both came from a common ancestor. The second one is molecular systematics, based on genetic analysis, which can provide much additional data that prove especially useful when few phenotypic characters can resolve relationships, as, for instance, in many viruses, bacteria[9] and archaea, or to resolve relationships between taxa that arose in a fast evolutionary radiation that occurred long ago, such as the main taxa of placental mammals.[10]

Main ranks

In his landmark publications, such as the Systema Naturae, Carl Linnaeus used a ranking scale limited to kingdom, class, order, genus, species, and one rank below species. Today, the nomenclature is regulated by the nomenclature codes. There are seven main taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus, and species. In addition, domain (proposed by Carl Woese) is now widely used as a fundamental rank, although it is not mentioned in any of the nomenclature codes, and is a synonym for dominion (la|dominium), introduced by Moore in 1974.[11] [12]

Main taxonomic ranks
LatinEnglish
Latin: regiodomain
Latin: regnumkingdom
Latin: phylumphylum (in zoology) / division (in botany)
Latin: classisclass
Latin: ordoorder
Latin: familiafamily
Latin: genusgenus
Latin: speciesspecies

A taxon is usually assigned a rank when it is given its formal name. The basic ranks are species and genus. When an organism is given a species name it is assigned to a genus, and the genus name is part of the species name.

The species name is also called a binomial, that is, a two-term name. For example, the zoological name for the human species is Homo sapiens. This is usually italicized in print or underlined when italics are not available. In this case, Homo is the generic name and it is capitalized; sapiens indicates the species and it is not capitalized. While not always used, some species include a subspecific epithet. For instance, modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, or H. sapiens sapiens.

In zoological nomenclature, higher taxon names are normally not italicized, but the Botanical Code, the Prokaryotic Code, the Code for Viruses, the draft BioCode and the PhyloCode all recommend italicizing all taxon names (of all ranks).

Ranks in zoology

There are rules applying to the following taxonomic ranks in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe, genus, subgenus, species, subspecies.[13]

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature divides names into "family-group names", "genus-group names" and "species-group names". The Code explicitly mentions the following ranks for these categories:[13]

The rules in the Code apply to the ranks of superfamily to subspecies, and only to some extent to those above the rank of superfamily. Among "genus-group names" and "species-group names" no further ranks are officially allowed, which creates problems when naming taxa in these groups in speciose clades, such as Rana.[14] Zoologists sometimes use additional terms such as species group, species subgroup, species complex and superspecies for convenience as extra, but unofficial, ranks between the subgenus and species levels in taxa with many species, e.g. the genus Drosophila. (Note the potentially confusing use of "species group" as both a category of ranks as well as an unofficial rank itself. For this reason, Alain Dubois has been using the alternative expressions "nominal-series", "family-series", "genus-series" and "species-series" (among others) at least since 2000.[15])

At higher ranks (family and above) a lower level may be denoted by adding the prefix "infra", meaning lower, to the rank. For example, infraorder (below suborder) or infrafamily (below subfamily).

Names of zoological taxa

Ranks in botany

Botanical ranks categorize organisms based (often) on their relationships (monophyly is not required by that clade, which does not even mention this word, nor that of "clade"). They start with Kingdom, then move to Division (or Phylum),[16] Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Taxa at each rank generally possess shared characteristics and evolutionary history. Understanding these ranks aids in taxonomy and studying biodiversity.

Ranks in ICN[17]
Rank Type Suffix
kingdom (regnum)primary
subregnum further
division (divisio)
phylum (phylum)		primary ‑phyta
-mycota (fungi)
subdivisio or subphylum further ‑phytina
-mycotina (fungi)
class (classis)primary ‑opsida (plant)
‑phyceae (algae)
-mycetes (fungi)
subclassis further ‑idae (plant)
‑phycidae (algae)
-mycetidae (fungi)
order (ordo)primary -ales
subordo further -ineae
family (familia)primary -aceae
subfamilia further ‑oideae
tribe (tribus)secondary -eae
subtribus further ‑inae
genus (genus)primary
subgenus further
section (sectio)secondary
subsectio further
series (series)secondary
subseries further
species (species)primary
subspecies further
variety (varietas)secondary
subvarietas further
form (forma)secondary
subforma further

There are definitions of the following taxonomic categories in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants: cultivar group, cultivar, grex.

The rules in the ICN apply primarily to the ranks of family and below, and only to some extent to those above the rank of family.

Names of botanical taxa

Taxa at the rank of genus and above have a botanical name in one part (unitary name); those at the rank of species and above (but below genus) have a botanical name in two parts (binary name); all taxa below the rank of species have a botanical name in three parts (an infraspecific name). To indicate the rank of the infraspecific name, a "connecting term" is needed. Thus Poa secunda subsp. juncifolia, where "subsp". is an abbreviation for "subspecies", is the name of a subspecies of Poa secunda.[18]

Hybrids can be specified either by a "hybrid formula" that specifies the parentage, or may be given a name. For hybrids receiving a hybrid name, the same ranks apply, prefixed with notho (Greek: 'bastard'), with nothogenus as the highest permitted rank.[19]

Outdated names for botanical ranks

If a different term for the rank was used in an old publication, but the intention is clear, botanical nomenclature specifies certain substitutions:

Examples

Classifications of five species follow: the fruit fly familiar in genetics laboratories (Drosophila melanogaster), humans (Homo sapiens), the peas used by Gregor Mendel in his discovery of genetics (Pisum sativum), the "fly agaric" mushroom Amanita muscaria, and the bacterium Escherichia coli. The eight major ranks are given in bold; a selection of minor ranks are given as well.

RankFruit flyHumanPeaFly agaricE. coli
DomainEukaryaEukaryaEukaryaEukaryaBacteria
KingdomAnimaliaAnimaliaPlantaeFungiPseudomonadati[20]
Phylum or divisionArthropodaChordataMagnoliophyta (Tracheophyta)BasidiomycotaPseudomonadota
Subphylum or subdivisionHexapodaVertebrataMagnoliophytina (Euphyllophytina)Agaricomycotina
ClassInsectaMammaliaMagnoliopsida (Equisetopsida)AgaricomycetesGammaproteobacteria
SubclassPterygotaTheriaRosidae (Magnoliidae)Agaricomycetidae
SuperorderPanorpidaEuarchontogliresRosanae
OrderDipteraPrimatesFabalesAgaricalesEnterobacterales
SuborderBrachyceraHaplorrhiniFabineaeAgaricineae
FamilyDrosophilidaeHominidaeFabaceaeAmanitaceaeEnterobacteriaceae
SubfamilyDrosophilinaeHomininaeFaboideaeAmanitoideae
TribeDrosophiliniHomininiFabeae
GenusDrosophilaHomoPisumAmanitaEscherichia
SpeciesD. melanogasterH. sapiensP. sativumA. muscariaE. coli
Table notes

Terminations of names

Taxa above the genus level are often given names based on the type genus, with a standard termination. The terminations used in forming these names depend on the kingdom (and sometimes the phylum and class) as set out in the table below.

Pronunciations given are the most Anglicized. More Latinate pronunciations are also common, particularly rather than for stressed a.

RankViruses[21] Bacteria and Archaea[22] Embryophytes (Plants)Algae (Diaphoretickes)FungiAnimals
Realm-viria
Subrealm-vira
Kingdom-virae-ati[23]
Subkingdom-viretes
Division/phylum-viricota -ota[24] -ophyta[25] -mycota
Subdivision/subphylum-viricotina -phytina -mycotina
Class-viricetes -ia -opsida -phyceae -mycetes
Subclass-viricetidae - -phycidae -mycetidae
Superorder-anae
Order-virales -ales -ida or -iformes
Suborder-virineae -ineae
Infraorder-aria
Superfamily-acea -oidea
Epifamily-oidae
Family-viridae -aceae -
Subfamily-virineae -oideae -inae
Infrafamily-odd [26]
Tribe-eae -ini
Subtribe-inae -ina
Infratribe-ad or -iti
Genus-virus
Subgenus-virus
Table notes:

All ranks

There is an indeterminate number of ranks, as a taxonomist may invent a new rank at will, at any time, if they feel this is necessary. In doing so, there are some restrictions, which will vary with the nomenclature code that applies.

The following is an artificial synthesis, solely for purposes of demonstration of absolute rank (but see notes), from most general to most specific:[30]

Significance and problems

Ranks are assigned based on subjective dissimilarity, and do not fully reflect the gradational nature of variation within nature. These problems were already identified by Willi Hennig, who advocated dropping them in 1969,[35] and this position gathered support from Graham C. D. Griffiths only a few years later.[36] In fact, these ranks were proposed in a fixist context and the advent of evolution sapped the foundations of this system, as was recognised long ago; the introduction of The Code of Nomenclature and Check-list of North American Birds Adopted by the American Ornithologists' Union published in 1886 states "No one appears to have suspected, in 1842 [when the Strickland code was drafted], that the Linnaean system was not the permanent heritage of science, or that in a few years a theory of evolution was to sap its very foundations, by radically changing men's conceptions of those things to which names were to be furnished."[37] Such ranks are used simply because they are required by the rank-based codes; because of this, some systematists prefer to call them nomenclatural ranks. In most cases, higher taxonomic groupings arise further back in time, simply because the most inclusive taxa necessarily appeared first.[38] Furthermore, the diversity in some major taxa (such as vertebrates and angiosperms) is better known that that of others (such as fungi, arthropods and nematodes) not because they are more diverse than other taxa, but because they are more easily sampled and studied than other taxa, or because they attract more interest and funding for research.[39] [40]

Of these many ranks, many systematists consider that the most basic (or important) is the species, but this opinion is not universally shared.[41] [42] [43] Thus, species are not necessarily more sharply defined than taxa at any other rank, and in fact, given the phenotypic gaps created by extinction, in practice, the reverse is often the case. Ideally, a taxon is intended to represent a clade, that is, the phylogeny of the organisms under discussion, but this is not a requirement of the zoological and botanical codes.

A classification in which all taxa have formal ranks cannot adequately reflect knowledge about phylogeny. Since taxon names are dependent on ranks in rank-based (Linnaean) nomenclature, taxa without ranks cannot be given names. Alternative approaches, such as phylogenetic nomenclature,[44] [45] as implemented under the PhyloCode and supported by the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature,[46] or using circumscriptional names, avoid this problem.[47] [48] The theoretical difficulty with superimposing taxonomic ranks over evolutionary trees is manifested as the boundary paradox which may be illustrated by Darwinian evolutionary models.

There are no rules for how many species should make a genus, a family, or any other higher taxon (that is, a taxon in a category above the species level).[49] [50] It should be a natural group (that is, non-artificial, non-polyphyletic), as judged by a biologist, using all the information available to them. Equally ranked higher taxa in different phyla are not necessarily equivalent in terms of time of origin, phenotypic distinctiveness or number of lower-ranking included taxa (e.g., it is incorrect to assume that families of insects are in some way evolutionarily comparable to families of mollusks).[51] Of all criteria that have been advocated to rank taxa, age of origin has been the most frequently advocated. Willi Hennig proposed it in 1966, but he concluded in 1969 that this system was unworkable and suggested dropping absolute ranks. However, the idea of ranking taxa using the age of origin (either as the sole criterion, or as one of the main ones) persists under the name of time banding, and is still advocated by several authors.[52] [53] [54] [55] For animals, at least the phylum rank is usually associated with a certain body plan, which is also, however, an arbitrary criterion.

Enigmatic taxa

Enigmatic taxa are taxonomic groups whose broader relationships are unknown or undefined.[56]

Mnemonic

There are several acronyms intended to help memorise the taxonomic hierarchy, such as "King Phillip came over for great spaghetti".[57]

See also

References

Bibliography

Notes and References

  1. Dubois . Alain . Phylogeny, taxonomy and nomenclature: the problem of taxonomic categories and of nomenclatural ranks . Zootaxa . 2007 . 1519 . 27–68 . 10.11646/zootaxa.1519.1.3 .
  2. Book: Cantino . Philip D. . de Queiroz . Kevin . PhyloCode . 2020 . CRC Press . Boca Raton, Fl . 978-0429821356 . en.
  3. Web site: International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants – Melbourne Code . Articles 2 and 3 . 2012 . IAPT-Taxon.org . 28 April 2013 . 10 June 2019 . https://web.archive.org/web/20190610042454/https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art2 . live .
  4. Greuter . W. . Garrity . G. . Hawksworth . D.L. . Jahn . R. . Kirk . P.M. . Knapp . S. . McNeill . J. . Michel . E. . Patterson . D.J. . Pyle . R. . Tindall . B.J. . Draft BioCode (2011): Principles and Rules Regulating the Naming of Organisms . Taxon . 2011 . 60 . 1 . 201–212 . 10.1002/tax.601019 . 41059835 . 0040-0262.
  5. Labeda . David P. . Oren . Aharon . International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes; XIth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology . International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology . 2008 . 58 . 7 . 1746–1752 . 10.1099/ijs.0.2008/005082-0 . 1466-5034. free .
  6. Book: Laurin . Michel . The Advent of PhyloCode: The Continuing Evolution of Biological Nomenclature . 3 August 2023 . CRC Press . 978-1-000-91257-9 . en.
  7. Book: Pavlinov . Igorʹ Ja . Taxonomic nomenclature: what's in a name: history and theory . 2021 . CRC Press . Boca Raton . 978-1003182535 . First.
  8. Book: Hennig . Willi . Phylogenetic Systematics . 1966 . University of Illinois Press . 978-0-252-06814-0 . en.
  9. Martinez-Gutierrez . Carolina A . Aylward . Frank O . Phylogenetic Signal, Congruence, and Uncertainty across Bacteria and Archaea . Molecular Biology and Evolution . 26 August 2021 . 38 . 12 . 5514–5527 . 10.1093/molbev/msab254 . 34436605 . 1537-1719. 8662615 .
  10. Tarver . James E. . dos Reis . Mario . Mirarab . Siavash . Moran . Raymond J. . Parker . Sean . O’Reilly . Joseph E. . King . Benjamin L. . O’Connell . Mary J. . Asher . Robert J. . Warnow . Tandy . Peterson . Kevin J. . Donoghue . Philip C.J. . Pisani . Davide . The Interrelationships of Placental Mammals and the Limits of Phylogenetic Inference . Genome Biology and Evolution . 5 January 2016 . 8 . 2 . 330–344 . 10.1093/gbe/evv261 . 26733575 . 4779606 . 1759-6653. 1983/64d6e437-3320-480d-a16c-2e5b2e6b61d4 . free .
  11. Moore . R. T. . Proposal for the recognition of super ranks . Taxon . 1974 . 23 . 4 . 650–652 . 10.2307/1218807 . 1218807 . 5 October 2016 . 6 October 2016 . https://web.archive.org/web/20161006082804/http://www.iapt-taxon.org/historic/Congress/IBC_1975/Prop034bis-037.pdf . live .
  12. Luketa . S. . New views on the megaclassification of life . Protistology . 2012 . 7 . 4 . 218–237 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20150402150257/http://protistology.ifmo.ru/num7_4/luketa_protistology_7-4.pdf . 2 April 2015.
  13. Book: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . 1999 . International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . London . The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . 0-85301-006-4 . Glossary . 10 November 2023 . 3 September 2021 . https://web.archive.org/web/20210903062842/https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/ . live .
  14. Dubois . Alain . Naming taxa from cladograms: A cautionary tale . Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution . 1 February 2007 . 42 . 2 . 317–330 . 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.06.007 . 16949307 . 2007MolPE..42..317D . 1055-7903.
  15. Dubois . Alain . Synonymies and related lists in zoology: general proposals, with examples in herpetology . Dumerilia . 2000 . 4 . 2 . 33–98.
  16. Web site: jibran . jibran . Log In ‹ Information metBotanical Ranks: Understanding Taxonomic Classification" Meta Description: Explore the hierarchical structure of botanical classification, from Kingdom to Species, essential for understanding plant diversity and evolution. a description — WordPress . 2024-05-07 . dev-information-meta-descrition.pantheonsite.io.
  17. Web site: 2012 . International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants – Melbourne Code . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20201010230658/https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art3 . 10 October 2020 . 28 April 2013 . IAPT-Taxon.org.
  18. Web site: International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants – Melbourne Code . Articles 4.2 and 24.1 . 2012 . IAPT-Taxon.org . 3 August 2018 . 3 August 2018 . https://web.archive.org/web/20180803133717/https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art4 . live .
  19. Web site: International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants – Melbourne Code . Article 3.2, and Appendix 1, Articles H.1–3 . 2012 . IAPT-Taxon.org . 28 April 2013 . 10 October 2020 . https://web.archive.org/web/20201010230658/https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art3 . live .
  20. Göker . Markus . Oren . Aharon . Valid publication of names of two domains and seven kingdoms of prokaryotes . International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology . 22 January 2024 . 74 . 1 . 10.1099/ijsem.0.006242 . 38252124 . 7 June 2024 . Society for General Microbiology . 1466-5034.
  21. Web site: ICTV Code. Section 3.IV, § 3.23; section 3.V, §§ 3.27-3.28... October 2018. 28 November 2018. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. 6 July 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20220706121843/https://ictv.global/about/code. live.
  22. Oren. Aharon . Jacques Euzéby . International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Prokaryotic Code (2022 Revision) . . 73 . 5a . 2023. 10.1099/ijsem.0.005585 . free . 37219928. 10261/338243 . free .
  23. Oren . Aharon . Emendation of Principle 8, Rules 5b, 8, 15, 33a, and Appendix 7 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to include the categories of kingdom and domain . International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology . 1 November 2023 . 73 . 11 . 10.1099/ijsem.0.006123 . 37909283.
  24. Whitman . William B. . Oren . Aharon . Chuvochina . Maria . da Costa . Milton S. . Garrity . George M. . Rainey . Fred A. . Rossello-Mora . Ramon . Schink . Bernhard . Sutcliffe . Iain . Trujillo . Martha E. . Ventura . Stefano . Proposal of the suffix –ota to denote phyla. Addendum to 'Proposal to include the rank of phylum in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes' . International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology . 1 March 2018 . 68 . 3 . 967–969 . 10.1099/ijsem.0.002593 . 1466-5034. free . 29458499 .
  25. Web site: International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) . Article 16 . 2018 . IAPT-Taxon.org . 19 December 2018 . 19 December 2018 . https://web.archive.org/web/20181219230353/https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_16.html . live .
  26. For example, the chelonian infrafamilies Chelodd (Gaffney & Meylan 1988: 169) and Baenodd (ibid., 176).
  27. ICZN article 29.2
  28. Pearse, A.S. (1936) Zoological names. A list of phyla, classes, and orders, prepared for section F, American Association for the Advancement of Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, p. 4
  29. As supplied by Gaffney & Meylan (1988).
  30. For the general usage of zoological ranks between the phylum and family levels, including many intercalary ranks, see Carroll (1988). For additional intercalary ranks in zoology, see especially Gaffney & Meylan (1988); McKenna & Bell (1997); Milner (1988); Novacek (1986, cit. in Carroll 1988: 499, 629); and Paul Sereno's 1986 classification of ornithischian dinosaurs as reported in Lambert (1990: 149, 159). For botanical ranks, including many intercalary ranks, see Willis & McElwain (2002).
  31. These are movable ranks, most often inserted between the class and the legion or cohort. Nevertheless, their positioning in the zoological hierarchy may be subject to wide variation. For examples, see the Benton classification of vertebrates (2005).
  32. In zoological classification, the cohort and its associated group of ranks are inserted between the class group and the ordinal group. The cohort has also been used between infraorder and family in saurischian dinosaurs (Benton 2005). In botanical classification, the cohort group has sometimes been inserted between the division (phylum) group and the class group: see Willis & McElwain (2002: 100–101), or has sometimes been used at the rank of order, and is now considered to be an obsolete name for order: See International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, Melbourne Code 2012, Article 17.2.
  33. The supra-ordinal sequence gigaorder–megaorder–capaxorder–hyperorder (and the microorder, in roughly the position most often assigned to the parvorder) has been employed in turtles at least (Gaffney & Meylan 1988), while the parallel sequence magnorder–grandorder–mirorder figures in recently influential classifications of mammals. It is unclear from the sources how these two sequences are to be coordinated (or interwoven) within a unitary zoological hierarchy of ranks. Previously, Novacek (1986) and McKenna-Bell (1997) had inserted mirorders and grandorders between the order and superorder, but Benton (2005) now positions both of these ranks above the superorder.
  34. Additionally, the terms biovar, morphovar, phagovar, and serovar designate bacterial strains (genetic variants) that are physiologically or biochemically distinctive. These are not taxonomic ranks, but are groupings of various sorts which may define a bacterial subspecies.
  35. Book: Hennig . Willi . Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten . 1969 . Kramer . Frankfurt am Main . 436.
  36. Griffiths . Graham C. D. . Some Fundamental Problems in Biological Classification . Systematic Zoology . December 1973 . 22 . 4 . 338–343 . 10.2307/2412942 . 2412942 . 0039-7989.
  37. Book: American Ornithologists' Union . The Code of Nomenclature and Check-list of North American Birds Adopted by the American Ornithologists' Union; Being the Report of the Committee of the Union on Classification and Nomenclature . 1886 . viii + 392 . en.
  38. Gingerich . P. D. . 10.1139/z87-169 . Evolution and the fossil record: Patterns, rates, and processes . Canadian Journal of Zoology . 65 . 5 . 1053–1060 . 1987. 1987CaJZ...65.1053G .
  39. Blaxter . Mark . Mann . Jenna . Chapman . Tom . Thomas . Fran . Whitton . Claire . Floyd . Robin . Abebe . Eyualem . Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences . 29 October 2005 . 360 . 1462 . 1935–1943 . 10.1098/rstb.2005.1725 . 16214751 . 1609233 . en . 0962-8436. 1842/4732 . free .
  40. Hibbett . David S. . Nilsson . R. Henrik . Snyder . Marc . Fonseca . Mario . Costanzo . Janine . Shonfeld . Moran . Automated Phylogenetic Taxonomy: An Example in the Homobasidiomycetes (Mushroom-Forming Fungi) . Systematic Biology . 1 August 2005 . 54 . 4 . 660–668 . 10.1080/10635150590947104 . 16126660 . 1063-5157.
  41. Mishler . Brent D. . Donoghue . Michael J. . Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism . Systematic Zoology . 1982 . 31 . 4 . 491–503 . 10.2307/2413371 . 2413371 . 0039-7989.
  42. Mishler . Brent D. . Getting Rid of Species? . Species . 9 July 1999 . 307–316 . 10.7551/mitpress/6396.003.0020 . The MIT Press . 978-0-262-28635-0 . en.
  43. Ereshefsky . Marc . Linnaean Ranks: Vestiges of a Bygone Era . Philosophy of Science . September 2002 . 69 . S3 . S305–S315 . 10.1086/341854 . en . 0031-8248.
  44. de Queiroz . Kevin . Gauthier . Jacques . Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names . Systematic Zoology . December 1990 . 39 . 4 . 307 . 10.2307/2992353 . 2992353 . 0039-7989.
  45. Sereno . Paul C. . Definitions in Phylogenetic Taxonomy: Critique and Rationale . Systematic Biology . 1 June 1999 . 48 . 2 . 329–351 . 10.1080/106351599260328 . 1076-836X.
  46. Laurin . Michel . Cantino . Philip D. . First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting: a report . Zoologica Scripta . September 2004 . 33 . 5 . 475–479 . 10.1111/j.0300-3256.2004.00176.x . en . 0300-3256.
  47. Kluge. N.J.. 1999. A system of alternative nomenclatures of supra-species taxa. Linnaean and post-Linnaean principles of systematics. Entomological Review. 79. 2. 133–147.
  48. Kluge . N.J. . Circumscriptional names of higher taxa in Hexapoda . Bionomina . 2010 . 1 . 1 . 15–55 . 10.11646/bionomina.1.1.3. free.
  49. Stuessy, T.F. (2009). Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. 2nd ed. Columbia University Press, p. 175.
  50. Brusca, R.C. & Brusca, G.J. (2003). Invertebrates. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, pp. 26–27.
  51. Dubois . Alain . Ohler . Annemarie . Pyron . R. Alexander . New concepts and methods for phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature in zoology, exemplified by a new ranked cladonomy of recent amphibians (Lissamphibia) . Megataxa . 26 February 2021 . 5 . 1 . 1–738 . 10.11646/megataxa.5.1.1 . en . 2703-3090. free .
  52. Avise . John C. . Johns . Glenn C. . Proposal for a standardized temporal scheme of biological classification for extant species . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . 22 June 1999 . 96 . 13 . 7358–7363 . 10.1073/pnas.96.13.7358 . free . 10377419 . en . 0027-8424. 22090 . 1999PNAS...96.7358A .
  53. Avise . John C. . Mitchell . Dale . Time to Standardize Taxonomies . Systematic Biology . 1 February 2007 . 56 . 1 . 130–133 . 10.1080/10635150601145365 . 17366143 . 1076-836X.
  54. Zhao . Rui-Lin . Zhou . Jun-Liang . Chen . Jie . Margaritescu . Simona . Sánchez-Ramírez . Santiago . Hyde . Kevin D. . Callac . Philippe . Parra . Luis A. . Li . Guo-Jie . Moncalvo . Jean-Marc . Towards standardizing taxonomic ranks using divergence times – a case study for reconstruction of the Agaricus taxonomic system . Fungal Diversity . 1 May 2016 . 78 . 1 . 239–292 . 10.1007/s13225-016-0357-x . en . 1878-9129.
  55. Lücking . R. . Stop the Abuse of Time! Strict Temporal Banding is not the Future of Rank-Based Classifications in Fungi (Including Lichens) and Other Organisms . Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences . 4 May 2019 . 38 . 3 . 199–253 . 10.1080/07352689.2019.1650517 . 2019CRvPS..38..199L . en . 0735-2689.
  56. Web site: Frequently Asked Questions . PLANTS database . . 2011-06-12.
  57. Book: Evans, Rod L.. 2007. Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge: The Book of Mnemonic Devices. Penguin. 978-1-4406-2207-6. 23 November 2023. 23 November 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20231123013844/https://books.google.com/books?id=_u10WSXeK4kC&dq=%22king+phillip+came+over+for+good+spaghetti%22&pg=PT26. live.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Taxonomic rank".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2025, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.